Quote from: Matthew

I'll repeat what I said in a different thread:

Quote

Speaking of respect...

On the other hand, I have serious misgivings about any priest who runs a website with his name followed by ".com".

I understand that IN THEORY it is the same as St. Anthony Mary Claret writing his numerous books, tracts, etc. He was extremely busy and managed his time very well. However, he was also very holy.

But we all know there's something different about handing a man a pamphlet personally and putting up a website. Wifi and Ethernet connections are no substitute for a personal connection.

At any rate, I couldn't see [St. Anthony Mary Claret] actively participating on a forum like Fisheaters, for example. Or starting a blog named after him (!) of all things. If someone like St. Anthony Mary Claret started an informative apologetics website, for example, it would be more generic and the author would be anonymous.

The priest I'm talking about, on the other hand, mostly talks about controversy in the Trad world, and is trying to convert every *Trad* to his own group's way of thinking. The rest of the world? His website has almost no value.

And this would be as true with a R & R Priest as with a SV Priest I am sure.  

But of course.

What do you think I am, a bloody hypocrite?

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Cantarella

This is an example of a common modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say whet the mean. Nothing further. No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma which is what they are trying to do with the dogma of Perpetual Succession. Vatican I clearly teaches that Blessed Peter has TRUE and perpetual papal successors.  It was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless, as sedevacantists want to pretend by changing the clear meaning of an already established dogma.

Come on, Cantarella; think past your personal bias against sedevacantism.  Your "correct/literal/uninterpreted" understanding of this dogma would have it be violated every time a pope dies.  So clearly the perpetual succession must be understood in some other way than the constant material occupation of the Holy See by some person or another.

Father Cekada has, however, completely glossed over the question of what it means for the "power" of the Papacy to endure in the context of a sedevacante.

I'm less knowledgeable than Father but I believe the "power" you refer to would be that the Chair of the Papacy is perpetually there waiting to be filled by a Catholic male above the age of reason.  If the Chair were a person it would be getting impatient by now and wondering what the problem is, but it would still be there.  

I'm thinking it has to be more than that, though.  Otherwise, you could have the chair sitting there empty for 1000 years.  There has to be some mechanism of continuity, probably a juridical one, that must perdure through sedevacante.  Father Cekada should probably explain that one; I would be interested in seeing the fruits of his research on that matter.

I would imagine that part of the perpetuity of the office is the binding effect of its laws.  While it seems absurd (to have a 1000 year interregnum), I cannot locate a principle which would clearly result in a sede vacante having a time limit.  I don't think one exists, and I think the best we can do is pull out the old "God wouldn't allow that!" card, which has proved time and time again to be a rash and presumptuous way of argumentation, as if His ways were not unsearchable, or if His ways were ours.

But if we consider the errors of R&R, they are often found in what submission to authority and communion mean-- many believe that a picture in the vestibule and the inserting of the title "pope" is how Catholics submit to the Roman pontiff and remain in communion with him.  Some will even dare to use "Unam Sanctam" against the sedevacantists, as if their not accepting the papacies of the last fifty years somehow made them not subject to the Roman pontiff-- the irony of course being that the R&R faithful reject the teachings and laws of these same pontiffs in toto.  On the contrary, subjection to the pope means following his laws, but not just the laws the reigning pontiff creates himself, but those which were created before him-- otherwise, taking the R&R reading of "Unam Sanctam" no one could go to Heaven during an interregnum!  So in this way, perpetuity is perpetual (besides the obvious ways that the office itself will remain until the end of time) in that it's decrees, laws and teachings are perpetual.  I will see if there is a source which supports this reading, but it makes sense to me.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Cantarella

This is an example of a common modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say whet the mean. Nothing further. No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma which is what they are trying to do with the dogma of Perpetual Succession. Vatican I clearly teaches that Blessed Peter has TRUE and perpetual papal successors.  It was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless, as sedevacantists want to pretend by changing the clear meaning of an already established dogma.

Come on, Cantarella; think past your personal bias against sedevacantism.  Your "correct/literal/uninterpreted" understanding of this dogma would have it be violated every time a pope dies.  So clearly the perpetual succession must be understood in some other way than the constant material occupation of the Holy See by some person or another.

Father Cekada has, however, completely glossed over the question of what it means for the "power" of the Papacy to endure in the context of a sedevacante.

I'm less knowledgeable than Father but I believe the "power" you refer to would be that the Chair of the Papacy is perpetually there waiting to be filled by a Catholic male above the age of reason.  If the Chair were a person it would be getting impatient by now and wondering what the problem is, but it would still be there.  

I'm thinking it has to be more than that, though.  Otherwise, you could have the chair sitting there empty for 1000 years.  There has to be some mechanism of continuity, probably a juridical one, that must perdure through sedevacante.  Father Cekada should probably explain that one; I would be interested in seeing the fruits of his research on that matter.

I would imagine that part of the perpetuity of the office is the binding effect of its laws.  While it seems absurd (to have a 1000 year interregnum), I cannot locate a principle which would clearly result in a sede vacante having a time limit.  I don't think one exists, and I think the best we can do is pull out the old "God wouldn't allow that!" card, which has proved time and time again to be a rash and presumptuous way of argumentation, as if His ways were not unsearchable, or if His ways were ours.

But if we consider the errors of R&R, they are often found in what submission to authority and communion mean-- many believe that a picture in the vestibule and the inserting of the title "pope" is how Catholics submit to the Roman pontiff and remain in communion with him.  Some will even dare to use "Unam Sanctam" against the sedevacantists, as if their not accepting the papacies of the last fifty years somehow made them not subject to the Roman pontiff-- the irony of course being that the R&R faithful reject the teachings and laws of these same pontiffs in toto.  On the contrary, subjection to the pope means following his laws, but not just the laws the reigning pontiff creates himself, but those which were created before him-- otherwise, taking the R&R reading of "Unam Sanctam" no one could go to Heaven during an interregnum!  So in this way, perpetuity is perpetual (besides the obvious ways that the office itself will remain until the end of time) in that it's decrees, laws and teachings are perpetual.  I will see if there is a source which supports this reading, but it makes sense to me.

Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate while not knowing what I'm talking about.  What you say makes sense.  I get a little confused on when disciplinary law can, may or might be able to be dispensed with and when they cannot.

The SSPX, I suppose does not try to convert people to their way of thinking, the same as this SV Priest does I suppose.

Well, some do and they are just as bad in my opinion.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I would imagine that part of the perpetuity of the office is the binding effect of its laws.  While it seems absurd (to have a 1000 year interregnum), I cannot locate a principle which would clearly result in a sede vacante having a time limit.

I agree that it's not about time per se, since there's no substantial difference between 3 years or 10 years or 50 years.  It has to be about some kind of juridical continuity, the precise nature of which eludes me ... which is why I think it would be helpful for Father Cekada to dig a little deeper into the subject.

I would think the principle would have to be ordinary jurisdiction.  As I understand it, this is a de fide teaching that the whole of the hierarchy of the Church can not fail (otherwise our Lord's promise would be in vain).  So long as the hierarchy is intact, even if it and the Church were reduced to a small remnant, than the Church being a perfect society, would always have the capability to elect her head.

I don't have the quote on hand, but one major theologian gave the example of if all the Cardinals being lost/killed/MIA in a war or earthquake, then the power to elect a pope would devolve to the Bishops in an imperfect general council or to the clergy in Rome.  I have read both but I am not sure which the theologians say comes next after the cardinals in the order.

I also remember reading somewhere (might have been Bellarmine forums) the analogy of the beard.  If we know that a one days growth is not a beard, if a two days growth is not a beard and a three days growth is not yet a beard, it is obviously wrong to conclude there is no such thing as a beard.  We know that beards exist, even if we cannot come to an exact agreement as to when stubble becomes a beard.  I thought that was a good analogy about the possible length of time of an interregnum.

Quote from: Cantarella

This is an example of a common modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say whet the mean. Nothing further. No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma which is what they are trying to do with the dogma of Perpetual Succession. Vatican I clearly teaches that Blessed Peter has TRUE and perpetual papal successors.  It was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless, as sedevacantists want to pretend by changing the clear meaning of an already established dogma.

Come on, Cantarella; think past your personal bias against sedevacantism.  Your "correct/literal/uninterpreted" understanding of this dogma would have it be violated every time a pope dies.  So clearly the perpetual succession must be understood in some other way than the constant material occupation of the Holy See by some person or another.

Father Cekada has, however, completely glossed over the question of what it means for the "power" of the Papacy to endure in the context of a sedevacante.

Not personal bias here, only loyalty to the True Faith and a sincere concern for the salvation of immortal souls. Posts are made in the spirit of true charity, not unnecessary bitter zeal.

To imagine the glorious Holy Roman Catholic Church of all ages without a visible Bishop of Rome for over half a century is an absurdity. Eastern Orthodoxy would be then a legitimate choice for nostalgic Catholics. Liturgies at the ROCOR are rich and extraordinary, by the way.  

When it comes to the Roman Pontiff, not even if he is a freemason, could he be deprived of his office by any canonical process.

The Council of Constance defined against the notion of loss of papal office due to sin, even publicly manifest scandal. These errors were declared in repsonse to the heresies of John Hus, one of the precursors of Protestantism, whose ideas about the Church militant helped form the basis for Protestant ecclesiology.The following is infallibly condemned as an error:

“If the pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it.” (Denz . 646. See also Denz . 661)

The authority of an ecuмenical council teaches that even if the pope is foreknown to be a "son of perdition and of the devil", he is still the pope.

Let's not confuse the power to elect a pope vs. the perpetual succession of the Papacy.

With regard to the beard analogy, that's what I why I said that there's no essential difference between 3 years, 10 years, 50 years.

So the question remains unanswered.  I don't think it's enough to say that there must always be valid bishops floating around.  What does it mean for there to be a "hierarchy" when there's no actual formal pope?  All this remains unclear to me.

There is a mystery to it.  It means that Christ Who was a strong handsome man is now bloody and beaten beyond recognition.  It is the final test of faith.  The angels had theirs, Adam and Eve had theirs, the Jews had theirs and in the last time we have ours.  We have to hold fast until the end despite not having all the answers.  Even now it is difficult to convert others to the Catholic Church because they assume the heretic/apostate/pedophile click to be it.  We have to say "no no not that, it is scattered throughout under ground as it was at the beginning".  The story ends as it begins.  

The end times are different from all the rest.  We won't be able to figure it all out until we are on the other side and realize how stupid we were.  

The following is infallibly condemned as an error:

“If the pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it.” (Denz . 646. See also Denz . 661)

The authority of an ecuмenical council teaches that even if the pope is foreknown to be a "son of perdition and of the devil", he is still the pope.

You continue to confuse "wickedness" with being Catholic or otherwise eligible to be Pope.  Even the most evil, perverted, malicious, hateful Catholic man who ever lived can be a legitimate pope, while even the most holy woman saint (say, a St. Therese of Lisieux) can never be pope.